SUMMARY --
Don Fallis, from the School of Information Resources and Library Science at the University of Arizona, explores the many facets of Wikipedia and why it should studied by epistemologists in his paper entitled "Toward a New Epistemology of Wikipedia." He defines epistemology as "the study of what knowledge is and how people can acquire it," (2) and believes that Wikipedia should be studied by others in his field because of the way it draws users to its database of knowledge. "Why are people turning to popular online informational sources instead of traditional, academic sources such as libraries, and how will this impact the future of informational science?" is a question that Fallis and many other epistemologists are faced with now that we have entered the digital age. Some of the pros that Fallis outlines about Wikipedia include it acts as an online community for millions of users to come to one common place for information; information is now accessible in many languages other than English allowing for an international community to be created; due to open source the amount of articles written by anonymous users was created in a timely matter that would've taken years to create if done by hand. The cons that Fallis sees includethe accuracy of information posted, as previously in the past only those who were academically accredited were able to write encyclopedia entries; the lack of control mechanisms that Wikipedia has in order to compensate for its open source authorship; the belief that those who utilize Wikipedia will acquire false beliefs instead of actual knowledge upon consulting Wikipedia. However Fallis concludes that while Wikipedia may have its faults, it is still a fairly reliable source as its power, speed, and functionality surpass any other open source informational database.
INQUIRY--
This article identifies two other open source platforms that have been made in the midst of the Wikipedia craze, that hope to offer alternative options to Wikipedia. They include Citizendium.org which has greater control mechanisms than Wikipedia as posts must be approved and experts are encouraged to submit entries; and Veropedia.com which hosts reliable, stable entries from Wikipedia that have been approved by experts. I had never heard of either of these sites until reading this article, and part of me wonders if they will actually succeed in their mission. Fallis argues that in order for Wikipedia to progress, it must evolve to incorporate more stringent posting parameters. However it is up to the users and readers of Wikipedia to initiate this change, for no matter how hard academics argue to change Wikipedia due to ethics and academic standards, the online community rarely accepts academic integrity reasons as a reason to initiate change. We value our independence and this notion of open source allowing anyone to publish on a database that is accessed by millions of people fuels our love for online anonymity. If more rules are created to guide the validity of online posts, how will this affect how we see Wikipedia?
QUESTIONS --
We have seen in the past how fast information can spread, especially when something goes viral. Due to the open source nature of Wikipedia, do you believe that it could potentially be utilized as a source for propaganda and change?
Who is in charge of determining whether or not something is "accurate"? Do they potentially have the power to create censorship in regards to what information is published, and what is not?
Continue Reading
Don Fallis, from the School of Information Resources and Library Science at the University of Arizona, explores the many facets of Wikipedia and why it should studied by epistemologists in his paper entitled "Toward a New Epistemology of Wikipedia." He defines epistemology as "the study of what knowledge is and how people can acquire it," (2) and believes that Wikipedia should be studied by others in his field because of the way it draws users to its database of knowledge. "Why are people turning to popular online informational sources instead of traditional, academic sources such as libraries, and how will this impact the future of informational science?" is a question that Fallis and many other epistemologists are faced with now that we have entered the digital age. Some of the pros that Fallis outlines about Wikipedia include it acts as an online community for millions of users to come to one common place for information; information is now accessible in many languages other than English allowing for an international community to be created; due to open source the amount of articles written by anonymous users was created in a timely matter that would've taken years to create if done by hand. The cons that Fallis sees includethe accuracy of information posted, as previously in the past only those who were academically accredited were able to write encyclopedia entries; the lack of control mechanisms that Wikipedia has in order to compensate for its open source authorship; the belief that those who utilize Wikipedia will acquire false beliefs instead of actual knowledge upon consulting Wikipedia. However Fallis concludes that while Wikipedia may have its faults, it is still a fairly reliable source as its power, speed, and functionality surpass any other open source informational database.
INQUIRY--
This article identifies two other open source platforms that have been made in the midst of the Wikipedia craze, that hope to offer alternative options to Wikipedia. They include Citizendium.org which has greater control mechanisms than Wikipedia as posts must be approved and experts are encouraged to submit entries; and Veropedia.com which hosts reliable, stable entries from Wikipedia that have been approved by experts. I had never heard of either of these sites until reading this article, and part of me wonders if they will actually succeed in their mission. Fallis argues that in order for Wikipedia to progress, it must evolve to incorporate more stringent posting parameters. However it is up to the users and readers of Wikipedia to initiate this change, for no matter how hard academics argue to change Wikipedia due to ethics and academic standards, the online community rarely accepts academic integrity reasons as a reason to initiate change. We value our independence and this notion of open source allowing anyone to publish on a database that is accessed by millions of people fuels our love for online anonymity. If more rules are created to guide the validity of online posts, how will this affect how we see Wikipedia?
QUESTIONS --
We have seen in the past how fast information can spread, especially when something goes viral. Due to the open source nature of Wikipedia, do you believe that it could potentially be utilized as a source for propaganda and change?
Who is in charge of determining whether or not something is "accurate"? Do they potentially have the power to create censorship in regards to what information is published, and what is not?
